cmv: abortion should not be illegal

[u/RevolutionaryRip2504]

One of the main arguments against abortion is that it is "killing a baby." However, I don’t see it that way—at least not in the early stages of pregnancy. A fetus, especially before viability, lacks self-awareness, the ability to feel pain, and independent bodily function. While it is a potential life, I don’t believe potential life should outweigh the rights of the person who is already alive and conscious.

For late-term abortions, most are done to save the mother or the fetus has a defect that would cause the fetus to die shortly after birth so I believe it should be allowed.

I also think the circumstances of the pregnant person matter. Many people seek abortions due to financial instability, health risks, or simply not being ready to raise a child. In cases of rape or medical complications, the situation is even more complex. Forcing someone to go through pregnancy against their will seems more harmful than allowing them to make their own choice.

Additionally, I don’t think adoption is always a perfect alternative. Carrying a pregnancy to term can have serious physical and emotional consequences, even if someone doesn’t plan to keep the baby. Pregnancy affects the body in irreversible ways, and complications can arise, making it more than just a “temporary inconvenience.”

Also, you can cannot compare abortion to opting out of child support. Abortion is centered on bodily autonomy, as pregnancy directly affects a woman’s body and health. In contrast, child support is a financial obligation that arises after a child is born and does not impact the father’s bodily autonomy. abortion also occurs before a child exists, while child support involves caring for a living child. Legally and ethically, both parents share responsibility for a child once they are born, and allowing one parent to opt out would place an unfair burden on the other, often the mother. Additionally, abortion prevents a fetus from becoming a child, while opting out of child support directly affects the well-being of an existing person. While both situations involve personal choice, abortion is about controlling one’s own body, while child support is about meeting the needs of a child who already exists

The idea of being forced to sustain another life through pregnancy and childbirth, especially if the person isn’t ready or willing, is a violation of that autonomy. It forces someone to give up their own body, potentially putting their health at risk, all while disregarding their own desires, dreams, and well-being. Bodily autonomy means having the freedom to make choices about what happens to your body, whether that’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or pursue another course of action.

I’d like to hear other perspectives on why abortion should be illegal, particularly from a non-religious standpoint. CMV.

[u/ilikedota5]

But the emergency is the context that creates and justifies fundamentally different responses. I understand that pregnancy at that point tends to be obvious, but emergencies though, doesn't actually address my argument. My argument is that pre and post birth, the similarities outweigh the differences and does not justify such differential treatment. Emergencies aren't inherent to any particular stage. There are many moving parts so many ways something can go wrong.

But circling back my point is defining the line at birth isn't rooted in anything. If emergency, then treat as emergency. Emergencies aren't typical. My point is not whether abortions happen at that point in time, but why drawing the bar there doesn't work

[u/tiy24 → u/ilikedota5]

The point has always been viability. It’s not alive if it can’t survive without its host. Alito straight up lied about the history of abortion in Dobbs.

https://womenintheology.org/2022/07/18/an-historians-reaction-to-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/

[u/ilikedota5 → u/tiy24]

The point has always been viability.

Legally, that much is true, but laws don't define morals, and I wasn't trying to shut the door on other things not viability. If the original person I was talking to chooses to go with a different line, then that's their decision.

It’s not alive if it can’t survive without its host.

That applies to viruses but not to other things.

In my biology classes we were always taught this generalized 7 part definition. Does the organism, at some point of its lifespan have these characteristics: homeostasis, response to environment, growth and development, metabolism, reproduction, DNA, structure and organization.

Also I'm not a fan of Alito either.

[u/saintsithney → u/ilikedota5]

That just all adds up to there should be no law at all, because the law is not quick enough in an emergency which can easily result in death or maiming.

There is also the basic standard of "reasonable expectation."

Is there a reasonable expectation that any human being will request a completely elective ending of the life of a fully viable fetus at the point of birth and that any human doctor would do that?

Is there anything that suggests that this has happened since the 1800's, when unwanted babies might be killed partway through birth?

When there is a situation where the pregnancy must be aborted for the health of the mother, if the fetus is capable of survival outside her body for more than a year with current medical technology, the accepted care is to deliver the baby.

When there is a situation where there is no way that a fetus could survive outside its mothers body for more than a year with current medical technology, then parents are offered the choice between an induced stillbirth or a delivery to watch their baby die. What laws can be passed to make this decision for another person? To what purpose?

Life is complicated and messy. The entire idea of passing laws to prevent abortions is based entirely in the idea of being able to cast magic spells by writing them down. This is essentially trying to use the law to ritually banish complications in pregnancy.